Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the two-step call pattern, the need for the confirmation token, the consent line that must be shown, and the email-link gate before any provider sees the enquiry. It also defines exactly what consent means, which is critical behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core clarification ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then organized into Step 1 and Step 2. Every sentence carries necessary workflow, consent, or outcome information. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the required inputs, the intermediate returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the approval gate, and the downstream email-link behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke both steps correctly and understand the side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow semantics beyond the schema: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must be true for validation, and confirmation is only used in the second call after the person approves. This meaningfully enriches the parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('submits') and resource ('an enquiry to BNG Quotes'), and immediately clarifies what it is not: not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are about describing or retrieving fields rather than submitting.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a step-by-step usage pattern (Step 1 and Step 2) and the condition for proceeding ('only if the person agrees'). It references enquiry_fields for keying answers, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one. The workflow context is clear, but explicit exclusions are absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.